WHICH HAS DONE THE MOST MISCHIEF IN THE WORLD,THE KINGS-EVIL OR PRIEST-CRAFT?

By the Kings-Evil is not intended the necessary rules which men adopt by their prudence, in the hours of reason, to control the unruly passions of themselves and others, which sometimes break out like an overwhelming torrent. No: such rule or government, whether administered by kings or any others, is a blessing to mankind; attended, however, with some evil, like every other blessing below the sun. But by the Kings-Evil is meant the lust of arbitrary power – the unjust strides to gain it – the disguise to retain it, and the cruelty inflicted by it.

By Priest-Craft, no contempt is designed to be cast upon any of the Lord’s priest’s, from Melchizedeck to Zecharias, nor upon any of the ministers of Christ, either those who have been remarkably endowed with power from on high, to work miracles, &c. or those of ordinary endowments, who have been governed by supreme love to the Saviour, and benevolence to mankind. These, to the world, have been like the stars of night. But by priest-craft is intended, the rushing into the sacred work for the sake of ease, wealth, honor and ecclesiastical dignity. Whether they plead lineal succession or divine impulse, their course is directed for self-advantage. By good words and fair speeches, they deceive the simple; and by solemn threatening of fines, gibbets, or the flames of hell, to those who do not adhere to their own importance beyond the reach of investigation. These remarks are intended for the priests of Pagan, Mahomedian and Christian countries, different indeed in their creeds, but uniform in their exertions, each class pleading the super-excellence of their religion; and alike compassing sea and land by their missionaries, to proselyte others to their faith.

The question now returns, “which has done the most mischief in the world, the Kings-Evil or Priest-Craft?”

The first man, Nimrod, who was affected with the Kings-Evil to a dangerous degree, was an impious wretch, who cruelly hunted down men in slaughter, and made sport of it as if they were beasts. After the disease broke out, it ran like a raging plague, and kings became as plenty as the locusts in Egypt; who sported themselves in cutting off the thumbs and great toes of each other. Indeed, among ten of the favored tribes, was a line of kings; and the character which raised many of them to the throne, was murdering their predecessors. History has detailed the destructive effects of the malignant disease in the world, for about four thousand years. What destruction of property! what torrents of blood! In the late contest in Europe, between Bonaparte and the Hereditaries, it is said that more than one million of lives were sacrificed.

Strong symptoms of this disease are found in representative Republics as well as in Monarchies. “Pray hold the ladder that I may climb the tree,” says the ambitious Democrat; and when he has ascended, he kicks the ladder down that no others may climb but himself. Out of the office he talks like a Whig, but in office he plays the tyrant. This predominant love of arbitrary power, has been the bane and ruin of many flourishing Republics. A plural tyrant is as mischievous as an individual despot.

To consider Priest-Craft in all its ramifications, would be a herculean task, that would make Olympus sweat. The game which it plays with power and deceit is all that will here be attended to. In ancient times, the servants of the priests, like modern constables, used coercion, and said, “Thou shalt give me now; and if not, I will take it by force.” But their religion and morality, cried, “Peace,” (be all united in our support: let there be no division, partyism, or bigotry among you,) “and he that put not into their mouths they declared war against.” These same teachers prophesied for reward and divined for money.

On the introduction of Christianity, “three shepherds (scribes, priests, and prophets,) were cut off in one month;” since which time, the ministers of the gospel have never been called priests, in the New Testament, in distinction from all the saints; but as words are but air, and bear the meaning which the speakers attach to them, let them be called priests.

It is the boast of Christianity, that in an enlightened period of time, (so far as it respects science and state policy,) it should be promulgated; and that without the aid of law, sword or college; but contrarywise in opposition to all of them; by simply appealing to the reason and judgments of men, it should gain such conviction among every class of citizens, that in three hundred years it should overturn an empire, which claimed universal sway.

Excepting imperfections and imposters, priests were then servants of the people, and not lords over God’s heritage. They had a missionary spirit and practiced upon it, without missionary societies and missionary funds. They labored to collect free-will offerings, which they themselves carried to the poor; but did not oppress the poor to fatten themselves. They trusted to Providence for their food and raiment, laboring and working with their own hands, and had nothing to do with town votes and subscription bonds for their living. They did not esteem the civil law, the very sinews of the gospel, but the sinner’s gospel. They never appealed to the laws to establish their holy days; confirm their creeds of faith; or punish any man that did not observe their days of worship, or pay the preacher of the parish. In short, they behaved as if they understood the will of their Master, that his kingdom was not of this world. That legal rewards should never be given for religious services; and that civil incapacities and legal penalties should never be inflicted on men for religious heterodoxy, or evils simply moral.

But after the founding of the Christian college, in Alexandria, and the mechanical form which Christianity assumed, Constantinus Magnus established it as the religion of the Empire, and made all others pay obeisance to that sheaf. What a melancholy reverse has followed! Churches invested with corporate power by the Acts of Legislatures, and not by the Acts of the Apostles. Ministers supported by the laws of men, contrary to the laws of Christ. And all this brought about by the craftiness of priests who profess to be the followers of Christ, and the imitators of the apostles; who estimate the excellency of their religion by its popularity, splendor and dignity. The living Jesus was but meanly clad with swaddling bands, with straw in a manger for his bed; but the dead Christ was wrapped in fine linen, and laid in a magnificent tomb.

The strife for power and pre-eminence was long and violent among the priests, till at length the Bishop of Rome prevailed: and there have been one hundred and eighty popes in succession, from A. D. six hundred and six until the present time. That popes, with their triple crowns, standing armies, thundering bulls, high claims and bloody cruelty; together with their legions of priests to support the papal throne by signs and lying wonders, are inverted followers of the meek and lowly Jesus, and his humble apostles, all protestants attest.

In the tenth century, an opinion prevailed all over Christendom, that with the close of that century, the world would be burnt up; which the crafty priests worked to their own advantage. Near the close of the century, men would give first all their money, and then all their land to the priests for a single prayer. At length the century closed; the world still continued: but the money and land were in the hands of the priests.

Soon after this a priest, called Peter the Hermit, crept out of his cell, and with a crucifix in his hand, ran to the princes of Europe, and inflamed them with holy ardor to raise their armies, and go and take Jerusalem and the holy land out of the hands of the infidels. This memorable frenzy of crusade, lasted more than a century; and some say as many as two millions of lives were sacrificed in the religious farce.

In the protestant countries, where the civil arm triumphs over the ecclesiastical, the Kings-Evil rages among kings and prelates, who in the disease, like Procrustus of old, forge their iron bedsteads, (creeds of faith,) and stretch or lop off all that are too long or too short for their measure. He, who in the preface of the English Bibles is compared to “the sun in its strength,” claimed infallibility as much as the Roman Pontiff. He ascended the Star-Chamber and preached, “That to call in question the infallibility of the king, was to wade into the weakness of princes.” His infallible tyranny, however, drove our forefathers from the bosom of their country, into the wilds of America. The same high claim cost his son Charles his crown and the head that wore it.

As it respects the bearings on society, all the difference that exists between a papal church, with a pope at the head, and the prelatical church, with a king or legislature at the head, lies in this, viz: the first is infallible, and the last is always right.

The first settlers in New England had been oppressed by the prelatic church in England, and fled to Holland; but not finding things among the Dutch to please them, Mr. Robinson’s Congregation came to Plymouth and set up their government and religion, in sixteen hundred and twenty. But all the art of their priests could not bring them into the measure of supporting the preachers by legal tax, until Governor Bradford was dead, which was more than thirty years afterwards. Those who settled at Boston, adopted the measure sooner. Priest Cotton, with his amazing influence, led the General Court to place Lord Majority in the pontifical chair in each town, and assume to itself the right of judging of the orthodoxy and tendency of every man’s doctrine. This high claim of power soon banished Roger Williams – persecuted Mrs. Hutchinson and Co., and hung several Quakers. This beast, though diverse from the beast of Rome and that of Great Britain, has been wondered at and followed by a majority of Massachusetts, until this time; “who is like unto this beast? who is able to make war with it?”

The late Convention, called to revise the Constitution, still retain the same principle. Strange, indeed, that Massachusetts, all alone, in opposition to all the other states, should still view religion a principle of state policy – the church a creature of state, and ministers in the light of state pensioners! That the legislature should have the power to clothe the majority of each town or parish with authority to compel the people, by a legal tax, to support the religious teachers among them. What a pity! When will men realize that a Constitution of civil Government, is a character of powers bestowed, and of rights retained; and that private judgment and religious opinions are inalienable in their nature, light sight and hearing, and cannot be surrendered to society. Consequently it must be impious usurpation for ecclesiasticals or civilians to legislate about religion. Things should be so fixed in government, that neither a tempting bait, to exempt from burdens and reward for services on one hand; nor any civil incapacities or proscriptions on the other, may either flatter or deter men in the work of the ministry. The first would draw into the ranks of the ministry indolent and avaricious men, who would follow for the loaves; the last would cast an unequal and cruel burden, on those who feel a woe if they preach not the gospel of Christ.

Admit of the principle that religious opinions are objects of legislation, or any wise subject to the control of jurisprudence, and there remains no effectual barrier in the hands of the people against legislative oppression. The disposition of the legislature is all the defence that remains; and this disposition is as variable and changeable as the moon. The freedom here contended for, is not founded on the toleration or benevolence of those in authority, but in nature, inalienable right, of which individuals cannot be deprived, but by impious tyranny. I call it impious; for a man cannot give greater evidence that he is ignorant of the precepts and spirit of Christianity, than when he resorts to legal coercion to compel others to perform what he himself believes to be religious duties. If a man works ill to his neighbor, punish him according to his crime: whether he plead religious impulse or devilish instigation, the fact alone is to be attended to. But where conscience begins, empire ceases.

This religious liberty is one item among others that has given the states of New York and Pennsylvania, such an amazing ascendency over Massachusetts. Foreigners, with their arts and wealth, bend their course to those climes where they can enjoy their religion without legislative chains; nor can all the pharisaic boast of the conscience-slave-holding state divert them from their choices.

The pretence for a legislative interference in religious affairs, is thus stated.

1st. Christianity is the best religion on earth, and is essential to good society.
2nd. All men ought to support the best good for society.
3rd. As many men will not contribute voluntarily, they ought to be compelled by law.

Was I capable of analyzing and elucidating this pretence, with the wisdom of a statesman, the politeness of a gentleman, and the skill of a logician, my strictures would appear to better advantage. With such talents as I have, however, I will make a few remarks; keeping in mind the words of a popular author, “If the truth is not as plain as the nose on the face, but few men will poke long in the dark to find it.”

That Christianity is the best religion on earth, has my unqualified assent, and I will add, that is the only religion that ever was on earth that brings pardon to the guilty, and brings a sure prospect beyond the grave. Granting this, a question arises, whether it is not possible for the best things to be perverted to the worst of purposes? The faith of Rome was once spoken of throughout the whole world, but when Christianity became the national characteristic of the empire, and was modulated as a political institute, it became an engine of cruelty. The inquisition in Spain, the horrid murders in South America, with the rivers of blood that have flowed in Asia, Africa and Europe, all done under the mask of Christianity, answer the question in the affirmative.

That Christianity is essential to good government, requires some animadversion. The nations of the earth from the eighteenth century, A. M. down, had recourse to civil government, and many famous law-givers among them, such as Solon, Lycurgus, &c. In this condition the world was, when Christianity was introduced, and whatsoever was true, virtuous, lovely and of good report, was selected and enjoined by the precepts of the New Testament, and the important doctrine of remission of sins by the blood of the Lamb, and the resurrection of the dead, (which heathen philosophy and state policy knew nothing of,) were revealed. Moral precepts of right, whether they are found in the golden verses of Pythagoras, the maxims of Soctrates, the sayings of Seneca, or in the Bible, are essential to the peace and good order of society. But to suppose that Christianity must put on a legal robe, and dictate either by a pope, a king, a prelate, a kirk or a major-vote, as essential to good government, is far, very far, from being true.

The New Testament is written multum in parvo; the whole of it can be distinctly pronounced in fourteen hours. It is an easy matter, therefore, to test the following questions.

Did the Lord Jesus Christ ever call in the aid of civil rulers to defend his doctrine, force an attendance on his ministry, and support the twelve and the seventy whom he sent out to preach? Did he ever ordain that his followers should be formed into bodies politic, and have legal authority to assess and distrain to support the gospel? Did he ever intimate that colleges should be endowed with funds, to prepare pious youth for the ministry, or prescribe any other measure, saving this, “Pray ye the Lord of the harvest, that he would thrust forth laborers into the harvest?” Did he ever institute that one day in every seven should be religiously observed by his followers, and that those who would not observe the day, should be arrested by a publican and fined by a magistrate? Did he leave any orders, that parishes, in their eccleastico political capacity, should contract with a preacher for life, and give him a sum per annum, and that this sum should be levied upon all, according to poll and property? He certainly ordained that those who preach the gospel, should live of it; but is the duty of communicating binding on the disciples in their social compact, or on them as individuals?

Granting Christianity all its merit, (which, as it respects the salvation of men, is incalculable,) still the question returns, “ought all men be compelled by law, to support it by tax”

The New Testament is the code of laws which Zion’s king has given to his subjects; to which nothing is to be added, and from which nothing is to be taken away. In that code, there is no account that Jesus or the apostles ever appealed to civil law, to aid them in their ministry, or ever desired it. Nor is there any precept given, that when Christianity should become more general in the nations, then magistrates should interfere. They asked for nothing but a dispassionate hearing and a correspondent belief, on rational evidence. All that preachers, in right, ask for from government, is to be protected as citizens, and let alone as religionists.

It is not only a supposable case, but a case that exists in fact, that in many parts of the world, Pagans, Jews, Turks and Christians, all have the bounds of their habitation fixed within the limits of one government. These several sects unite and form one body politic; for mutual advantage and defence, each sect pays its part of the civil list, and all arm equally alike for mutual defence. In such a case, what reason can be offered, why the three last should all be compelled to support the temple and worship of Jupiter? or why the other sects should be forced to be circumcised and abstain from swine’s flesh, etc.” or that all the rest should subscribe to the alcoran and worship the great prophet? Every Christian would say, “the demand is unreasonable and cruel.” If the Christians should gain the ascendency and tax all the other sects, to support the religion of Christ, would not the other sects have equal cause to plead injustice and cruelty? and would not the religion which they profess to admire, meet them in the face, and cry, “Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even the same unto them?”

In the United States, the above case has but small bearings, where the number of Pagans, Jews, and Mahometans is so small; but, there are thousands of Deists, who cannot be convinced of any revelation from God to man, except of nature; and a thousand thousand who cannot conscientiously join with any religious society, from an honest conviction in their own judgments, that they themselves are not fit for Christian fellowship; or that the religious societies among whom they live, are not sound in faith. Now, what is to be done with all these? shall Christians compel the Deists to support that which they believe to be delusion? As well might they call for fire to come down from heaven and come them, because they do not receive Christ? It is a horrid work for infidels to persecute Christians, but, for Christians to oppress and persecute those who own themselves unbelievers, has no excuse. Men of common honesty, have judgments, though they may be void of the holy unction; and in their best judgments, thousands of them conclude, that while they are destitute of the spiritual anointing, it would be a presumptuous crime for them to join a religious society, which is composed of living stones. Others there are who entertain a hope for themselves that their sins are pardoned; but with the sects of religionists, among whom they live, they cannot in conscience unite. In such cases, ought the ruling party to compel such honest souls to act the hypocrite, or support that order of worship, in which they have no faith? If it should be suggested, that such men make their pleas only to save their money, and act hypocritically, (which no doubt is the case with some,) the answer is, that their hypocrisy originates from the compelling power, which always has a tendency to create hypocrites, and distress honest men. But, pray, who has given the ruling sect a patent right to all the hypocrites, and all honest individuals? It is enough for societies to tax their own members, who have voluntarily joined them and wish to be taxed; but, for them to send a press-gang of assessors and constables, and press all within their limits to enter their service or be put in irons, may be justified on the principle of sovereign tyranny, but it is certainly anti-Christian.

If all men ought to be taxed to support religion, why are the priests themselves exempted? Paul enforced his precepts by his example. “I have coveted no man’s silver or gold, or apparel. Yea, ye yourselves know that these hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me. I have showed you all things, how that so laboring, ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, it is more blessed to give than receive.” These words were directed by the apostle to the Elder of Ephesus. And why priests should be exempted from civil taxes and military duty – and why they should lay grievous burdens, hard to be borne, on the shoulders of others, and not touch them with the tip of the one of their fingers, I know not.

The most popular argument, used by the priests and company, in Massachusetts, to justify legislative interference and a compulsive power in religious taxation is, “that religion and education are placed on the same footing in government; and, therefore, as all men of interest ought to support education, for the good of the commenwealth, so, likewise, all ought to be compelled to support the priests. That, as ignorance and barbarism will prevail, if education is not supported, so superstition and heresy will abound, unless legal provision is made for the priests.”

If this is a correct principle – an axiom in politics, it is as necessary among Pagans and Mahometans as in Christian countries. If there should be ever so respectable a minority of Christians among the Hindoos or Turks, according to this principle, they must all unite with heathen and musselmen, to support the priests of Jupiter, and missionaries of the great prophet. Where this takes place, and the Christians complain of their burden, would they like to hear this doctrine from the ruling party – “religion and education are placed on the same footing; and, as you share the protection of government, you must bar the burden with us, to support both the good of society.”? The question answers itself.

Where do Christians learn the lesson, that religion and education stand on the same footing? The first originates in heaven, the last arises among men. The first, no natural man can receive or know – none of the princes of this world understand it – there is a way which no bird (common man) knoweth; the vulture’s eye (philosophical research) hath not seen it; the lion’s whelps (princes and rulers with all their proficiency in policy) have not trodden it; nor the fierce lion (the warrior with all his military skill) passed by it. It is hidden from the wise and prudent, and revealed to babes. What is more common than for men of the greatest science to be the farthest from Christian piety; while the most illiterate are filled with the spirit? It was said, by some, that Jesus never learned – John was in the deserts until he began his ministry – many of the apostles were brought up in fishing boats: where do men get the idea that religion and education, like a pair of columns, stand on the same pedestal? The scheme of uniting believers and unbelievers together in religious society – of having some in the pales of the church, who are not in the church – of being incorporated by law, and becoming bodies politic – of levying money for building meeting-houses and paying the priests, as is done for the state and county tax, etc., may be justified on the principle of enlarging society and getting money; but meets with no support from the New Testament.

It should never be forgotten, that there is no object of legislation, but what natural men, as such, can understand and legislate upon; but the things of the spirit, which belong to the Messiah’s kingdom, are out of the reach of merely wise men, and, therefore, do not come within the compass of legislation. Every attempt of a legislature to interfere about Christianity, is to impeach the wisdom of Christ, as not knowing how, or his goodness, in not giving a sufficient code to his subjects. Those, who are in reality the followers of Christ, will not – durst not – and know they cannot make any addition to the code which Christ has given. But those who, under a pretence of friendship to Christ, as spiritual lords, have presumed to dictate, to their consummate hypocrisy have added completely tyranny. Religion and education do not, therefore, stand on the same ground; for education is an article which natural men can legislate upon with understanding. Whatever may be said of those governments that contend for the divine right of kings – that they were born to rule – that they are the fountains of honor and power – that rex lex, is a true maxim, and that the subjects enjoy their privileges as favors from the throne, and not of native right; yet, surely, in the United States, where lex rex is believed in – where it is understood that all power is originally in the people, and, by them, given to their agents, there can be no plea for a legislative interference in religious concerns; for the many units in a government cannot invest their legislature with any power which they themselves do not possess in small constituent parts. If each individual has this power and right to dictate and compel his neighbor what God to adore – what homage to pay – what times to pay his homage, and how much to contribute, then, by adding all these little items of rightful power together, the whole body of the people may invest their legislature with power to interfere, but not without.

If the Almighty had appointed legislatures for it, and they would take the responsibility upon themselves to answer for all the people at the judgment day, it would be reasonable that they should have the control of them in this life. But this is not the case: every man must give an account for himself; surely then he ought to be left free to act for himself. Legislatures, judges and jurors, in their official capacities, have nothing to do with the souls or consciences of others, or eternity.

The introduction of pure Christianity into a nation, is an immense blessing, so long as it operates in its native channel; which is to make known the good will of God to men, through a Mediator, and teach them to do justly, lover mercy, and walk humbly before God. But, wherever it has been made the characteristic of a whole nation, and treated as a principle of state policy, it has been the worst hag above hell. Heathens and Turks shudder at the perfidy, fraud, cruelty and thirst for blood, which prevail in Christian nations. Hence, the appearance of Christian missionaries, in barbarous nations, is dreaded. Those nations look upon them as the precursors of war. And stubborn fact proves that colonization, war and extermination have followed them in many instances. What a pity that the only religion on earth, worth having, should be perverted, by priest-craft, to a trade of emolument – an article of merchandise – a science of the schools – a sanctuary for crimes – a pretence for extermination – a claim for power, and a speculation for money. Christianity must, necessarily, be the best thing on earth; otherwise, it could never have been a covert for the worst abominations.

Notwithstanding a compulsive power exists in the constitution of government, and laws of Massachusetts, to force people to pay the priests, yet the principle has been rebutted with so much address, that it is greatly weakened. The spirit of so respectable a minor rises so high against it, that the majority hesitate to use it on every occasion. Recourse is therefore had to the formation of societies – charitable appeals, etc., to raise funds to make preachers – support them that are made – and furnish the missionaries with money to carry the gospel to remote regions. In these exertions a great degree of philanthropy, or a great degree of craft is manifested. The images of the gods of India are literally held to view, and the immolations of the Hindoos are painted out in all the horrors of language. Children are exhorted to cast in their mites, with encouragements that every cent may save a soul, and young men are solicited to labor a part of their time to supply the ministerial treasury. Restraints on drink and superfluities are recommended, and every conceivable measure pointed out, (except the unpopular method of ministers waiting until they are endued with the spirit – taking neither purse nor scrip with them when they go – being willing to die daily that others may live – to labor, working with their own hands to supply their necessities, etc.,) as if the salvation of the world depended upon a priest-fund as much as it did on the promise made to Abraham. Good God! are these thy ways?

To honor the Lord with our substance – to contribute for the relief of the poor and widows – to administer to the saints, and communicate all good things to those who teach the word, are sacrifices with which the Lord is well pleased. But to create large funds in advance, for the declared purpose of educating young men for the ministry, and supporting missionaries, lays a temptation before them which may be too strong for many to withstand, that are not inwardly moved by the Holy Ghost to the work of the ministry.

When Jesus was on earth, he called unto him “whom he wold,” and sent them forth to preach, nor is there any good reason to believe that the same Jesus does not now use the same method: if so, it is not for parents, friends, churches, presbyteries, or bishops to designate the candidates. If certain grades of education, beyond what men in common possess, are more necessary now than at the first times of the gospel, the Lord of the harvest can thrust such forth. I have not yet been able to find any command or precedent, in the New Testament, for the churches to be at expense for the preparatory stages of the preachers. No, nor indeed any preparatory stages at all, until it pleases God to separate them from their mother’s womb, and call them by his grace to preach, without conferring with flesh and blood.

The subject of producing preachers, is treated by many as a mathematical question. “There are so many vacant parishes – so many old preachers will die in a year. These vacancies must be supplied, and so many must annually be raised for foreign and domestic missions. And as preachers cannot be raised without money, money must be collected in every devisable way, or souls will perish for lack of knowledge.” If my conceptions are just, St. Paul would treat such mathematical and mechanical stuff with an indignant smile; and well he might, for he, himself, labored abundantly, and travelled from Jerusalem round about the Illyricum, fully preaching the gospel, without such parade of reasoning.

The exemptions which students receive, from military duty and civil taxes, while in the states of preparation, together with the prospect of a support through life, are strong temptations to many, who are no great friends to sun-burnt faces and hard hands. This suggestion will not appear invidious, when many of them confess, that their motive is to get an easy and genteel living.

The missionary plan, formed with great ingenuity, is now in operation, and will soon test its own merit. Like the great Amazon, it receives its tributary streams of thousands of auxiliary societies, and draws revenue from every spring. Whether this great exertion is the travail of Zion, to be delivered from Babylon, and usher in the latter-day glory, or whether it is only a piece of ostentatious pomposity, and will finally burst like a bubble, as the crusade and armada did, is yet uncertain. To me it appears more like religious parade than humble piety. The predominant spirit seems to speak, “come, see my zeal for the Lord of Hosts.” It opens a door for writers to paint fables and exaggerate facts. It is a lucrative business for printers, and a large field for preachers, who cannot find employment at home.

I close with an anecdote, between James Manning, president of Brown University, and Sam Niles, an Indian preacher, in Charlestown, Rhode Island. Mr. Manning paid Niles a visit, and addressed him thus: “How do you do brother Niles?” To whom Sam replied, “Ah, who are you?” Mr. Manning replied, “I am James Manning, a preacher of the gospel of Christ.” “Ah,” said Sam, “do you preach for Jesus Christ or old ten?”*

Elder John Leland

The Writings of the Late Elder John LelandPages 484 – 495

______________________________________
* When dollars passed at forty-five shillings, the currency was called old ten.

For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed. (Mal. 3:6)